Dr Conway
Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation

Both Dr Conway and Professor Kroll were members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI, a conflicting interest which was unexplored in the case.  Members of the JCVI are unlikely to draw attention to problems with vaccines because they make the recommendations for their use. And if Dr Conway and Professor Kroll were seen to be recommending, on a clinical basis, that vaccination was not necessary at all for individual children, they would be seen to be contradicting government health policy based on JCVI recommendations and acting counter to the policies aimed at achieving what is called ‘herd immunity’.  So it is difficult to see how either could reasonably fulfil their briefs without uncritically pursuing the party line on vaccination which is, in fact, just what they did.
.....As experts, Dr Conway and Professor Kroll were under a duty to assess independently the data and results presented in medical papers.  They instead uncritically accepted the conclusions of the authors of the papers.  Neither Dr Conway nor Professor Kroll gave balanced accounts of the risks and benefits of vaccination.  Neither dealt properly with the adverse effects of vaccination and the associated problems. Both of their reports dwelt on the potential severity of childhood illnesses and minimised the side-effects of vaccines.  Both promoted the health gains of the 20th Century as being due to vaccination. This is a factually unsustainable and erroneous view (despite being a deeply held view throughout the medical profession).  Both erred in failing to acknowledge that the improvements in health overall over the last century to date were attributable substantially to factors having little to do with vaccination.  Neither supported the view that a well nourished 21st Century child would cope well or easily with previously common childhood diseases.  Both Dr Conway and Professor Kroll gave little weight to the ability of a healthy child to be sufficiently nursed through ordinary childhood infectious diseases and there was no consideration regarding any other health promoting measure than vaccination.
............Clifford Miller also instructed Dr Peter Fletcher, a former Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, to act as my expert witness.  Dr Fletcher read my report and was of the opinion that I had not been misleading. On the contrary, commenting on Professor Kroll and Dr Conway’s reports he described them as: “… unequivocally focussed upon the benefits, and therefore the safety, of the vaccines and have given absolutely minimal attention to their adverse effects even when they have been clearly included in official literature such as Data Sheets, Package Inserts and Patient Information Leaflets” (Day eight) http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/gmc  Dr Jayne Donegan, MB